POLI 21222 Politics and Policy-Making in the UKUnit Guide

2015/16 Teaching Block 1, weeks 1-11

Unit Owner: Dr Elizabeth Evans Level: ICredit points: 20

Phone 0117 928 8398 Prerequisites: NoneEmail Elizabeth.evans@bristol.ac.uk Office 2.1,10 Priory Road

Make sure you check your Bristol email account regularly throughout the course as important information will be communicated to you. Any emails sent to your Bristol address are assumed to have been read. If you wish for emails to be forwarded to an alternative address then please go to https://wwws.cse.bris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/redirect-mailname-external

Lectures: TBC

Seminars:Check individual timetables

Curriculum area: Comparative and National Politics

Unit descriptionThis unit provides a detailed analysis of some of the key themes and issues in the UK’s political system. It provides an overview of the relationship between the different aspects of the political system and shows how these have evolved in the last twenty years. It focuses on both the formal institutions of Parliament and the non-elected actors who influence the UK’s political process.

Teaching arrangementsOne 2 hour lecture and 1 hour seminar per week. In addition there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and assessments. The University Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student input.

Requirements for credit pointsSeminar attendanceOne summative essayOne summative unseen exam

Summative assessmentOne 2000 word essay, 25% of Unit markOne two hour, unseen exam, 75% of Unit mark

Instructions for the submission of coursework and assessed essays can be found in the Appendix.

Unit aims To extend the breadth of students’ knowledge base of political institutions in the UK To provide both a theoretical and empirically based understanding of contemporary UK political

1

processes To foster awareness of the ideological and institutional features of modern UK government and

politics To develop the ability to apply theoretical concepts to the practical issues of problem solving and

analysis

Learning outcomes Demonstrate the ability to discuss major issues in contemporary UK politics based upon secondary

reading An understanding of the processes of political change within the UK Demonstrate a detailed knowledge of the relationship between elected and non-elected actors A critical understanding of the development of the key institutions and offices in contemporary UK

politics and of how these inter-relate An understanding of the ideas, concepts and organisational features of the UK political parties and of

the forms of competition between them An ability to locate and use various data sources and to apply these analytically in relation to

behaviour and explanatory theory

Transferable skills Learn how to assimilate information about political behaviour and political processes and use this

to develop and evaluate explanatory theories Learn to recognise the dynamic interplay between institutions and ideologies Learn how to develop and structure arguments for both oral and written delivery Learn how to handle complexity using various models to enhance understanding Practise the art of consolidating notes and material after lectures and seminars Learn how to read selectively and purposefully Learn how to research varied sources, including use of the web, for writing essays. develop skills in planning, organising, drafting and redrafting essays Learn how to benefit from feedback

Development and feedback Tutors will provide formal written feedback on the summative essay Students should talk to their tutor about, and may discuss an essay plan, in their tutor’s office hours Students should discuss revision plans with their tutor in office hours The summative essay examines student knowledge of the topic being answered; demonstrates their

abilities in the critique of competing analytic frameworks appropriate to the study of British politics; skills in application of these to empirical world of British Politics; and essay writing skills, not least, the advancement and substantiation of argument.

Whilst summative, the essay will also, especially through feedback, enable students to prepare better for the unseen examination

Coursework and deadlinesThe written requirements for this unit are:

One 2,000 word summative essay. The essay is due on or before X. Essays should be submitted electronically directly to Blackboard via the SPAIS Undergraduate

Administration site. Should you submit late, the site will mark the essay as late and you will be penalised. One unseen, two hour, written exam – January 2016

Essay Requirements Essays must be 2,000 words An essay that is over length will be penalised

2

An essay which is too short may be required to be rewritten, though you will still receive the original mark

Essays that either do not contain a bibliography, or fail to cite sources, or do not reference the material used will be penalised

An essay with no referencing will be marked no higher than 40 Inadequate referencing will result in marks being deducted

Requirements For Credit PointsStudents must: Complete all required work, whether written or not Have no more than 20% unexcused absences from seminars Obtain a passing mark on the assessment relevant to each unit. This is the unit mark that will be

recorded on the transcript.

Teaching Arrangements

Lectures will take place weekly for 10 weeksLectures provide an overview of each topic, and will give special attention to divergent views and conflicting explanatory theoriesLecture outlines are placed on www.ole.bris.ac.uk after each lecture

Seminars will take place weekly for 10 weeks Preparation for seminars is vital and will enable critical discussion to take place on themes introduced in lectures Each seminar will have a central topic under examination and associated seminar questions Each seminar has required core reading This will come from either the required text for purchase, electronic journals or blackboardYou must read all of each seminar’s required reading prior to the class, and in preparation for the seminar discussion If you have not read it, you will not be able to participate fully or to understand the issues under analysis. Students are expected to attend all seminars If you cannot make any seminar you should let your individual tutor know as soon as possible Absences from seminars may mean that you do not receive the credit points for this unit.

Seminar Reading

It is essential that you read all the key reading for each week’s seminar in advance of the seminar. The seminar will be based upon the questions listed in the unit guide outline, be prepared to discuss these questions each week NB, as this is a second year unit, additional readings published after this syllabus was written will be uploaded to Blackboard. Note too, that as a second year unit much of the reading will come from academic journals; many of which are available as ejournals from the University Library.

Also, because British politics changes all the time, new articles will be published throughout your studies. You should ensure that you keep up to date with new research by looking at the following relevant journals: British Politics, British Journal of Politics and International Relations (BJPIR), Parliamentary Affairs, Political Quarterly and Political Studies. You might also look for relevant articles in Public Administration, Governance, Public Administration Review, British Journal of Political Science, West European Politics, Government and Opposition and Party Politics.

In order to develop your understanding of contemporary politics it is vital that you:o Read a broadsheet newspaper, ideally daily, but at least the weekend versionso Watch quality television news and political programmes such as Channel 4 news; Newsnight;

Andrew Marr show on BBC 1 Sunday mornings; o Listen to Radio 4 politics programmes: Today (Monday to Saturday 6-9pm), Westminster Hour

(Sunday) and the Week in Westminster (Saturday) (all can be accessed via BBC iplayer).o Read weekly and monthly magazines: for example, The New Statesman, The Spectator and

Prospect, o Make use of new social media such as Twitter to pick up on ‘informal’ political debates

3

o You should visit regularly the following websites:o http://www.parliament.uk The official Parliament homepage: this contains information

about Parliament, text of Hansard, select committee reports and much else, including links to the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland.

o http://www.europa.eu.int/index-en.htm. The official website of the European Union, which again has links to numerous other websites, including that of the European Parliament.

o www.revolts.co.uk Analysis of parliamentary votes o The following political blogs are also important to look at to get a more partisan view of

political events: http://www.recessmonkey.com/

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/http://www.labourhome.org/http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/http://www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs.aspxhttp://www.libdemvoice.org/

Lecture scheduleThere will be one two hour lecture a week.

1. Party and electoral systems2. Elections3. Political parties 14. Political parties 25. House of Commons6. House of Lords7. The Executive8. Devolution9. Interest groups10. The media

Seminar schedule

Week 1 Party and Electoral Systems

This seminar will explore the relationship between electoral and party systems and consider the extent to which they both impact upon each other across the UK, and more specifically at Westminster.

Questions for discussion in seminar:1) What impact, if any, have recent constitutional reforms had on the UK’s party system(s)? 2) How does the electoral system at Westminster constrain the UK’s party system(s)?3) Why did the AV referendum fail?

Required reading for seminar:

Curtice, J. (2010) ‘So What Went Wrong with the Electoral System? The 2010 Election Result and the Debate About Electoral Reform’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol 63, no. 4.

Whiteley, et al (2012) Britain Says NO: Voting in the AV Ballot Referendum, Parliamentary Affairs, 65, 301-322

Further reading:*Webb, Paul. 2000. The Modern British Party System, London: Sage Publications. JN1121 WEB*Driver, S. (2011) Understanding British Party Politics (Cambridge: Polity). Chapter 1. On order Allen, N. 2006. ‘A Restless Electorate: Stirrings in the Political System’, in J. Bartle and A. King (eds) Britain at the Polls 2005, Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly. JN956 BRI

4

Bagehot, Walter. (1867)1968. The English Constitution (London: Fontana) JN125 BAGBaston, L. 2005. ‘The Party System’ in A. Seldon, and D. Kavannagh (eds.) The Blair Effect 2001-2005, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JN231 BLABattle, John and Samantha Laycock. 2006. ‘Elections and Voting’, in P. Dunleavy et al. (eds) Developments in British Politics 8, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Berggren, Niclas., Joakim Nergelius and Nils Karlson. (eds.) 2002. Why Constitutions Matter, London: Transaction. KM32 WHYBlau, Adrian. 2004. ‘Fairness and Electoral Reform’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol 6, no. 2 pp.165-181.Bogdanor, Vernon. (ed.) 2003. The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press. KM61 BRIBorisyuk, G., Rallings, C., Thrasher,M. Johnston, R. (2009) ‘Parliamentary Constituency Boundary Reviews and Electoral Bias: How Important Are Variations in Constituency Size?’ Parliamentary Affairs 61, 1: 4-21;Butler, David. 1963. The Electoral System in Britain Since 1918, Oxford: Oxford University Press. JN955 Colomer, Josep. 2005. ‘It’s parties that choose the electoral system (or Duverger’s Laws upside down)’, Political Studies vol 53, no. 1 pp.1-21 Dunleavy, Patrick and Helen Margetts. 2005. ‘The Impact of UK Electoral Systems’ Parliamentary Affairs vol. 58, no. 4 pp.854-870. Dunleavey, Patrick. 2005. ‘Facing up to multi-party politics’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 58, no.3 pp.503-532 Evans, Mark. 2003. Constitution-making and the Labour Party, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. KM61 Flinders, Matthew. 2005. ‘Majoritarian Democracy in Britain: New Labour and the Constitution’ West European Politics, vol 28, no.1 pp.61-93. Johnston, Ron.,Charles Pattie., Danny Dorling, and David Rossiter. 2001. From Votes to Seats: The Operation of the UK Electoral System Since 1945, Manchester: Manchester University Press. R21.22 Lynch, Philip. and Robert Garnett. 2005. ‘The Changing Party System’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol 58, no. 3 pp 533-554 Renwick, Alan. (2009)’How Likely is Proportional Representation in the House of Commons? Lessons from International Experience’, Government and Opposition,   44, 4. Ware, Alan. 1996. Political Parties and Party Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press. JF2011 WAR

Week 2

ElectionsThis seminar will consider some of the main theoretical and empirical approaches to analysing elections in the UK, address some of the key cleavages in explaining voting behaviour, and discuss the outcome of the 2015 GE.

Question for discussion in seminar:1) How do spatial and valence models of voting behaviour explain electoral outcomes in Britain?2) How do demographics impact voter behaviour?

Required reading for seminar

Whiteley, P, Clarke, H.D, Sanders, D and M Stewart. 2015. ‘The Economic and Electoral Consequences of Austerity Policies in Britain’ Parliamentary Affairs, 68 4-24

Plus one article on the 2015 general election

Further reading

2010 General Election: * Kavanagh, D. and Cowley, P. (2010) The British General Election of 2010*Fox, R. (2010) ‘Five Days in May: A New Political Order Emerges’, Parliamentary Affairs, 63, 4. Times Guide to the 2010 General Election Ashe, J. et al (2010) ‘Stand by Your Man’, British Politics, 5, 4, available via blackboard. Childs, S. and Webb, P. (2011) Sex, Gender and the Conservative Party: From Iron Lady to Kitten Heels (Basingstoke: Palgrave), chapter available via blackboard Clarke,H. et al (2011) ‘Valence Politics and Electoral Choice in Britain, 2010’, JEPOP 21, 2.

5

Curtice,J. et al (2011) ‘Confounding the Commentators: How the 2010 Exit Poll Got it (More or Less) Right’, JEPOP, 21, 4. Heath, A. et al (2011) ‘Ethnic Heterogeneity in the Social Bases of Voting at the 2010 British General Election’, JEPOP 21, 2.Quinn, T. et al (2011) ‘The UK Coalition Agreement of 2010: Who Won?’, JEPOP, 21,2.Taylor-Gooby, P. and Stoker, G. (2011) ‘The Coalition Programme’, Political Quarterly, 82, 1.

2005 General ElectionCommons report on election results: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp05-033.pdf Parliamentary Affairs Special Election 2005 Issue (58:4). Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Special issue on the 2005 elections. 16:1 2006.British Politics Special issue vol.1 no.2 July 2006 Butler, David and Dennis Kavanagh. 2005. The British General Election of 2005, Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan. JN956 KAVNorris, Pippa. And Christopher Wlezien. 2005. Britain Votes 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press JN956 BRI

Other Reading:Alderman, Keith. 2000. 'Stranger than Fiction? The Selection of the Conservative and Labour LondonMayoral Candidates' Parliamentary Affairs, vol 53, no. 4, pp.737-752Bartle, John & Samantha Laycock. 2006. ‘Elections and Voting’ in P. Dunleavy., et al., (eds.) Developments in British Politics 8, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Campbell, R. And Childs, S. (2008) Women’s Political Participation and Voting’, in Childs, S. (2008) Women and British Party Politics (London: Routledge). Childs, Sarah., Joni Lovenduski and Rosie Campbell. (2005) Women at the Top, London: HansardSociety. Availbale online:http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/publications/archive/2007/10/01/Women-at-the-Top-

2005.aspx Clarke, Harold., David Sanders., Marian Stewart and Paul Whiteley. (2004) Political Choice in Britain,Oxford: Oxford University Press. JN956 POLDenver, David. 1994. Elections and Voting Behaviour in Britain, Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.JN956 DENDowding, Keith. 2005. ‘Is it Rational to Vote?’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 7, 3. Evans, Geoffrey and Pippa Norris. (eds.) 1999. Critical Elections, London: SAGE. JN956 CRIKellner, Peter. (2009) ‘Britain's Oddest Election?’ Political Quarterly, 80, 4.Norris, Pippa. (ed) 2001. Britain Votes 2001, Oxford: Oxford University Press. JN956 BRIRallings, Collin and Michael Thrasher. (2005) ‘Why the North East said “No”: The 2004 Referendum on an Elected Regional Assembly’ Available online www.devolution.ac.uk/Briefing_papers.htmRallings, Colin., Michael Thrasher, M and David Cowling. 2002. ‘Mayoral Referendums and Elections’, Local Government Studies, vol, 28, no. 4, pp.67-90

Week 3 Political Parties I

This seminar, the first of two looking at the UK political parties, will consider some of the key issues associated with party organization, declining levels of political participation and concepts of intra-party democracy. Questions for discussion in seminar:

Mass, Catch-all, Cartel and Plebiscitary Parties – which is the most meaningful description for UK political parties?

Why are parties losing members? Does this matter? And what should be done about it? Is ‘Intra-party Democracy’ a good thing? For whom?

Required Reading for seminar:

Fisher et al (2013) ‘Members are not the only Fruit: Volunteer Activity in British Political Parties at the 2010 General Election’ BJPIR, doi: 10.1111/1467-856X.12011

6

ADD ONE

Additional ReadingBeech, M. and Lees, S. (2009) The Conservatives under David Cameron: Built to Last? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2009) on order. Blyth, M. and Katz, R. (2005) ‘From Catch All Parties to Cartelization’, West European Politics, 28, 1. Driver, S. (2011) Understanding British Party Politics (Cambridge:Polity). Chapter 2. On orderFisher, J. (2010) Party Finance Normal Service Resumed?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 63, 4. Heppell, T. (2010) Choosing the Labour Leader: Labour Party Leadership Elections from Wilson to Brown (London: I. B. Tauris) Heppell, T. (2008) Choosing the Tory Leader: Conservative Party Leadership Elections from Heath to Cameron (London: I. B. Tauris) Katz, R. (2001) ‘The Problems of Candidate Selection and Models of Party Democracy’, Party Politics, 7.Scarrow, S. (1999) ‘Democracy Within – and Without – Parties’, Party Politics, 5, 3. Scarrow, S, and Gezgor, B. (2010) ‘Declining Memberships, Changing Members?’, Party Politics, 16, 6. Van Biezen, I. (2000) ‘On the Internal Balance of Party Power’, Party Politics, 6,4.Webb, P. and Childs, S. (2011) ‘Wets and Dries Resurgent? Intra-Party Alignments Among Contemporary Conservative Party Members’, Parliamentary Affairs, 64, 3.Whitely, P. (2011) ‘Is the Party Over? The Decline of Party Activism and Membership across the Democratic World’, Party Politics, 17, 1.

Week 4 Political Parties II

This seminar, the second of two looking at the UK political parties, will consider some of the key issues associated with the ideological heritage and future direction of the three main political parties, and consider the nature of contemporary inter-party competition.

Questions for discussion in seminar:1) Are Cameron’s Conservatives the heir of Blair? Of Thatcher? Or Compassionate Conservatism?2) Did 2010 signal the ‘end’ of New Labour? Where does Labour go now? What do you think of ‘One nation Labour’? 3) What future for the Liberal Democrats?

Required reading for seminar:

Griffiths, S. (2014) ‘What was Progressive in “Progressive Conservatism”?’ Political Studies Review, 12: 29–40.

Further reading:*Gamble, A. (2010) ‘New Labour and Political Change’, in Geddes, A. and Tonge, J. (2010) Special Issue Parliamentary Affairs 63, 4Special Issue on Cameron Conservatives, Political Quarterly (2009) 80, 2. Ball, Stuart. and Anthony Seldon. 2005. Recovering Power: The Conservatives in Opposition since 1867, London: Palgrave Macmillan. JN1129.C72 RECBale, T. (2010) The Conservative Party: from Thatcher to Cameron (Cambridge: Polity)Beech, M, and Lee, S. (2011) The Cameron-Clegg Government: Coalition Politics in an Age of Austerity (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). Beech, M. and Lees, S. (2009) The Brown Government: A Policy Evaluation (London: Routledge 2009) Beech, Matt. 2009. ‘A Puzzle of Ideas and Policy: Gordon Brown as Prime Minister’, Policy Studies, vol. 30, no.1 pp.5-16.Beech, M. and Lees, S. (2009) Ten Years of New Labour (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2008).Carswell, Douglas (and other Conservative MPs) 2005. ‘Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New ModelParty’ available at www.direct-democracy.co.uk Childs, Sarah. 2008. Women and British Party Politics, Oxon: Routledge (Ordered) Childs, S. and Webb, P. (2011) Sex Gender and the Conservative Party, From Iron Lady to Kitten Heels (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Coates, David. 2005 Prolonged Labour: The Slow Birth of New Labour in Britain, London: PalgraveMacmillan. JN1129.L32 COADriver, S. (2011) Understanding British Party Politics (Cambridge:Polity). Chapters 3-7, on order.

7

Evans, Stephen. 2008. ‘Consigning its Past to History? David Cameron and the Conservative Party’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol 61, no.2 pp.291-314.Evans, S. (2010) ‘Mother's Boy': David Cameron and Margaret Thatcher’, BJPIR, 12, 3. Evans, E and E. Sanderson-Nash (2011) ‘From Sandals to Suits: Professionalisation, Coalition and the Liberal Democrats’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations 13, 4Evans, E. 2008. ‘Supply or Demand? Women Candidates and the Liberal Democrats’ British Journalof Politics and International Relations, Vol, 10, pp.590-606 Garnett, Mark. 2003. The Conservatives in Crisis: The Tories After 1997, Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press. JN1129.C73 CONGiddens, Anthony. 2002. Where now for New Labour?, Cambridge: Polity, Fabian Society.JN1129.L32GIDGreen, J. (2010) ‘Strategic Recovery:’ Conservatives under Cameron’ , in Geddes, A. and Tonge, J. (2010) Special Issue Parliamentary Affairs 63, 4Hayton and, Heppell, T. (2010) ‘The Quiet Man of British Politics: the Rise, Fall and Significance of Iain Duncan Smith’, Parliam Aff 63, 3.Heppel, Tim and Hill, Michael (2009) ‘Transcending Thatcherism? Ideology and the Conservative Party Leadership Mandate of David Cameron’, Political Quarterly, 80, 3. Jobson, R. And Wickham-Jones, M. (2010) ‘Gripped by the past: Nostalgia and the 2010 Labour party leadership contest’, British Politics, 5, 4. Lovenduski, Joni. 2005. Feminizing Politics, Cambridge: Polity. HQ1236 LOVLudlam, Steve. and Martin J. Smith. (eds.) 2003. Governing as New Labour: Policy and Politics underBlair, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. JN1129.L33 GOVPeston, Robert. 2005. Brown’s Britain, London: Short. DA591.B77 PESO’Hara. Kieron 2007. After Blair : David Cameron and the Conservative tradition  Norris, Pippa and Christopher Wleizen. 2005. Britain Votes 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press JN956Rawnsley, Andrew. 2001. Servants of the People: The Inside Story of New Labour, London: Penguin.JN1129.L32 RawRussell, Andrew., Edward Fieldhouse, and David Cutts. 2007. ‘De facto Veto? The Parliamentary Liberal Democrats’ Political Quarterly, vol 78, no. 1 pp.89-98.Russell. Andrew and Edward Fieldhouse. 2005. Neither Left nor Right? The Liberal Democrats and theElectorate, Manchester: Manchester University Press. (Ordered)Russell, Meg. 2005. Building New Labour, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan JN1129.L33 RUSSeyd. Patrick and Paul Whiteley. 2004. ‘British Party Members: An Overview’. Party Politics, vol 10, no. 4pp.355-366Geddes, Andrew. and Jonathon Tonge. 2001. Labour’s Second Landslide, Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press JN956 LABWheatcroft, Geoffrey. 2005. The Strange Death of Tory England, London: Penguin. JN1129.C73 WHEWilliams, S. and Scott, P. (2011) ‘The Nature of Conservative Party Modernisation Under David Cameron: The Trajectory of Employment Relations Policy’, Parliamentary Affairs 64, 3.

Week 5 House of Lords

This seminar will address the role of the ‘Other place’ in the UK Parliament. It considers the power of the House of Lords and the reforms of the chamber post 1997, and possible post-2010 ones. Discussion will focus on accountability, democracy and effective scrutiny.

Questions for discussion in seminar:1) Are reforms of the Lords necessary?2) Should the House be fully elected or can appointment be defended, as Parkinson suggests?

Required reading for seminar: Kelso, Alexandra. 2006. ‘Reforming the House of Lords: Navigating Representation, Democracy

and Legitimacy at Westminster,’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol 59, no. 4, pp.563-581. Parkinson, J. (2007) ‘The House of Lords: A Deliberative Democratic Defence’ The Political

Quarterly, 78, 3..

Further readingBaker, Paul. 2004. ‘'Unnatural Acts': Discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debates on gay male law reform’ Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol 8, no. 1, pp.88-106 Baldwin, N. 1985. ‘The House of Lords: Behavioural Changes’, in Norton, P. (ed) Parliament in the

8

1980s, Oxford: Oxford University Press. JN549 PARBaldwin, N. (ed) 2005. Parliament in the 21st Century (London: Politico’s) JN550 PARBochel,H. and Defty, A. (2010) ‘A Question of Expertise: the House of Lords and Welfare Policy’ , Parliamentary Affairs, 63, 1: 66-84Dorey, Peter. 2008. ‘Stumbling Through 'Stage Two': New Labour and House of Lords Reform,’ British Politics, vol 3, no.1, pp.22-44.HM Government (2007) White Paper, “The House of Lords: Reform” (Cm 7027)Available at: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7027/7027.asp *Kelso, A. (2009) Parliamentary Reform at Westminster (Manchester: MUP).Lipsey, David. (2009) ‘What the House of Lords is Really for?’ Political Quarterly, 80, 3. Maclean, Iain., Arthur Spirling and Meg Russell. 2003. ‘None of the Above: The UK House of Commons Votes opn Reforming the House of Lords’, Political Quarterly, vol 74, no.3, pp.298-310.Norton, Philip. 2003. ‘Cohesion without Discipline: Party Voting in the House of Lords’ Journal of Legislative Studies, vol 9, no. 4, pp.57-72.Pearce, Edward (2009) ‘An Elected Upper House and Other Fallacies’, Political Quarterly 80, 4. Richard, Ivor and Damien Welfare. 1999. Unfinished Business: Reforming the House of Lords, London: Vintage. JN623 RICRogers,William and Roger Walters. 2004. How Parliament Works, London: Pearson Longman. JN549 ROGRush, Michael. 2005. Parliament Today, Manchester: Manchester University Press. JN511 RUS* Russell, M. (2010) ‘A Stronger Second Chamber? Assessing the Impact of House of Lords Reform in 1999 and the Lessons for Bicameralism’, Political Studies, 58, 5. *Russell, Meg and Maria Sciara. 2006. The House of Lords in 2005: A More Representative and Assertive Chamber?, London: Constitution Unit KM82.3 RUSRussell, Meg and Maria Sciara. 2009. ‘Independent Parliamentarians En Masse: The Changing Nature and Role of the ‘Crossbenchers’ in the House of Lords’, Parliamentary Affairs, 62,1. Shell, Donald. 2000. ‘Labour and the House of Lords: A Case Study in Constitutional Reform’ Parliamentary Affairs, 53, 2. Shell, Donald. 1992. The House of Lords, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. KM82.3 SHE Whittaker, R. 2006. ‘Ping Pong and Policy Influences: Relations between the Lords and Commons,2005-2006,’ Parliamentary Affairs, 59, 3.

Week 6 House of Commons

This seminar will consider the role of the Commons in holding government to account. It will do so in the context of the coalition government and the impact this may or may not have on the functioning and effectiveness of Parliament.

Questions for discussion in seminar:1) How should the House be reformed to tilt it in the legislature’s favour? Which reforms should be

expedited? 2) How should we understand rebellions in a Parliament that has a Coalition government? 3) Does it matter if the House of Commons does not represent the country?

Required reading for seminar: Kelso, A. (2010) ‘Changing parliamentary Landscapes’ in Heffernan, R, et al (eds) Developments

in British Politics 9 (Basingstoke: Palgrave) Korris, M. (2011) ‘Standing up for Scrutiny: How and Why Parliament Should Make Better Law’,

Parliamentary Affairs 64, 3. (on blackboard) Childs, S and Evans, E. (2012) ‘Taking it out of the Hands of Parties: Women’s Legislative

Recruitment at Westminster’, The Political Quarterly, 83, 4, pp 742-748 (on blackboard)

Further reading:*Cowley, Philip. 2006. ‘Making Parliament Matter?’ in P. Dunleavy, et al (eds.) Developments in British Politics 8, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Allington, Nigel F.B. and Peele, Gillian (2010) ‘Moats, Duck Houses and Bath Plugs: Members of Parliament, the Expenses Scandal and the Use of Web Sites’, Parliamentary Affairs 63, 2.

9

Baldwin, N. (ed) 2005. Parliament in the 21st Century, London: Politico’s. JN550 PARBeetham, David., Iain Byrne., Pauline Ngan, and Stuart Weir. 2003. ‘Democratic Audit: Towards a Brazier, Alex and Fox, R. (2010) ‘Enhancing the Backbench MP's Role As a Legislator: The Case for Urgent Reform of Private Members Bills’ Parliamentary Affairs, 63, 1.Broader View of Democratic Achievement,’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol 56, no. 2 pp.334-347 Childs, Sarah. 2004. New Labour’s Women MPs, London: Routledge. HQ1391.G7 CHICowley, Philip. 2002. Revolts and Rebellions: Parliamentary Voting Under Blair, London: Politico’s. Cowley, Philip. www.revolts.co.uk analysis of voting and parliamentary behaviour Cowley, Philip, and Sarah Childs. 2003. ‘Too Spineless to Rebel? New Labour’s Women MPs’, British Journal of Political Science, vol 33, no. 3 pp.345-365.Cowley, Philip, and Mark Stuart. 1997. ’Sodomy, Slaughter, Sunday Shopping and Seatbelts: Free Votes in the House of Commons, 1979 to 1996’ Party Politics, vol 3, no. 1 pp.119-130Cowley, Philip and Mark Stuart. (2004) “Parliament: More Bleak House than Great Expectations’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol 57, no. 2 pp. 301-314 Cowley, Philip. And Mark Stuart. 2005b. ‘Still Causing Trouble? The Parliamentary Party’, Political Quarterly, vol 75, no. 4, pp.356-361Cowley, P. and Stuart, Mark. (2010) ‘Party Rules, OK: Voting in the House of Commons on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill’, Parliamentary Affairs 63,1.Cowley, Philip and Mark Stuart. 2005. ‘Parliament: Hunting for votes’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol 58, no. 2 pp.258-271. Flinders, Mathew (2010) Democratic Drift (OUP: Oxford) (on order)Griffith, J.A.G and Michael Ryle. 1989. Parliament: Functions, Practice, and Procedures, London: Sweetand Maxwell. KM84 GRIHealey, John., Mark Gill and David McHugh. 2005. MPs and Politics in Our Time, London: Hansard Society. Available online at http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/publications/archive/2007/10/02/MPs-and-politics-in-our-time.aspx Judge. David. 1999. Representation: Theory and Practice in Britain, London: Routledge. JN956 JUDJudge, David. 2005. Political Institutions in the United Kingdom, Oxford: Oxford University Press JN231 Kelso, A. (2009) ‘Parliament on its Knees: MPs' Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster,’ Political Quarterly, 80,3.Norton, Philip. 1975. Dissension in the House of Commons 1945-1974, London: Macmillan. Store Levy, Jessica (2010) ‘Public Bill Committees: An Assessment Scrutiny Sought; Scrutiny Gained’, Parliamentary Affairs, 63, 2. Pitkin, Hanna. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation, California: University of California Press JF1051 Riddell, Peter. 2000. Parliament Under Blair, London: Politico’s. JN550 RIDRiddell, Peter. (2010) ‘In Defence of Politicians: In Spite of Themselves’, Parliamentary Affairs, 63, 2.Rogers,William and Roger Walters. 2004. How Parliament Works, London: Pearson Longman. JN549 Rosenblatt, Gemma. 2006. A Year in the Life: From member of public to Member of Parliament, London: Hansard Society. Available online at http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/publications/archive/2007/10/17/A-Year-in-the-Life.aspx Seaward, P. (2010) ‘Sleaze, Old Corruption and Parliamentary Reform: An Historical Perspective on the Current Crisis, Political Quarterly, 81, 1. Wright, Tony (2009) The Political Quarterly, 2009 Lecture: Doing Politics Differently, 80, 3. See also articles in Political Quarterly 80, 4 in response to this. Wright, T. (2010) ‘What are MPs For?’, Political Quarterly, 81, 3.

Week 7 The ExecutiveThis seminar will analyse the Executive and evaluate theories about its structure and behaviour. Given the Coalition Government, it also examines how such theories and models ‘cope’ with the post 2010 political environment.

Questions for discussion in seminar:1) Do you agree with Heffernan, that the British PM is best not described as a President? 2) Why does Flinders suggest that the extent to which Britain remains a ‘parliamentary state’ will be

subjected to increasing debate? 3) What difference, if any, does coalition politics at Westminster make a difference to both of these

questions?

Required reading for seminar:

10

Richards, D. (2010) ‘Changing Patterns of Executive Governance’, in Heffernan et al (ed) Developments in British Politics 9 (Basingstoke: Palgrave)

Heffernan, R. (2010) ‘The Predominant Party Leader as Predominant Prime Minister? David Cameron in Downing Street’. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669422

Flinders, M. (2002) ‘Shifting the Balance? Parliament, the Executive and the British Constitution’ Political Studies, 50, 1.

Further reading:Annesley, C. And Gains, F. (2010) ‘The Core Executive: Gender, Power and Change’, Political studies 58, 5. Burch, Martin and Ian Holliday. 2004. ‘The Blair Government and the Core Executive’ Government and Opposition, vol, 39, no. 1, pp.1-21.Flinders, Matthew. 2000. ‘The Enduring Centrality of Individual Ministerial Responsibility within the British Constitution’. Journal of Legislative Studies, vol 6, no. 3 , pp.73-91.Foley, Michael. 2004. ‘Presidential Attribution as an Agency of Prime Ministerial Critique in a Parliamentary Democracy’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol, 6, no. 3, pp.292-311.Foster, Christopher. 2005. British Government in Crisis, Oxford: Hart. JN231 FOSGray, Andrew and Bill Jenkins. 2004. ‘Government and Administration: Too Much Checking, Not enough Doing?’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 57, no. 2, pp.269-287.Hay, Colin and David Richards. 2001. ‘The Tangled Webs of Westminster and Whitehall: The Discourse, Strategy and Practice of Networking within the British Core Executive’ Public Administration, vol, 78, no. 1, pp.269-287. Heffernan, Richard. 2005. ‘Exploring and Explaining the British Prime Minister’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol 7, no. 4, pp.605-620.Heffernan. Richard. 2003. ‘Prime Ministerial Predominance? Core Executive Politics in the UK’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol, 5, no.3, pp.347-372.Heffernan, Richard. 2005. ‘Why the Prime Minister Cannot be a President: Comparing Institutional Imperatives in Britain and the US’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 58, no. 1, pp.53-70.Hennessy, Peter. 2000a. ‘The Blair Style and the Requirements of Twenty-First Century Premiership’. Political Quarterly, vol, 76, no.1, pp.3-11.Hennessy, Peter. 2000b. The Prime Minister: The Office and its Holders since 1945, London: Penguin. Hennessy, Peter. 2005. ‘The Blair Style of Government’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 58, no. 1, pp.6-18.Holliday, Ian. 2000. ‘Is the British State Hollowing Out?’, Political Quarterly, vol, 71, no. 2, pp.167-176. Hood, Christopher., Oliver James and Colin Scott. 2000. ‘Regulation of Government: Has it increased, is it increasing, should it be diminished?’, Public Administration, vol, 78, no.2, pp.283-304.James, Simon. 1999. British Cabinet Government, London: Routledge. JN406 JAMJudge, David. 2004. ‘Whatever Happened to Parliamentary Democracy in the United Kingdom?’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 57, no.3, pp.682-701.Plant, Roger. 2003. ‘A Public Service Ethic and Political Accountability’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 56, no.4, pp.560-579.Quinn, T. Et al (2011) ‘The UK Coalition Agreement of 2010: Who Won?’, JEPOP, 21,2.Rhodes, R.A.W. and Patrick Dunelavy. (eds.)1995. Prime Minister, Cabinet and Core Executive, London: Macmillan. JN405 PRIRhodes, R.A.W. 2000. ‘New Labour’s Civil Service: Summing-up Joining-up’, Political Quarterly, vol, 71, no. 2, pp.151-166.Riddell, Peter. 2000. Parliament Under Blair, London: Politico’s. JN550 RIDRogers,William and Roger Walters. 2004. How Parliament Works, London: Pearson Longman. JN549 ROGStevens, et al (2011) ‘Party Leaders as Movers and Shakers in British Campaigns? Results from the 2010 Election’, JEPOP, 21, 2.

Week 8 Territorial dimensions to the UK

This seminar will analyse the changes in centre/periphery relations post 1999. Students will develop a capacity to evaluate the effects of devolution for the politics of the UK.

Questions for discussion in seminar: Is the ‘break up’ of the UK more likely than not, a decade and more on from New Labour’s

devolution?

11

Required reading for seminar Scully, R. And Wyn Jones, R. (2010) ‘Territorial Politics’ in Post-Devolution Britain’ in Heffernan,

R. Et al (ed) Developments in British Politics 9 (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Tonge, J. and Evans, J. (2010) ‘Northern Ireland: Unionism Loses More Leaders’, Parliamentary

Affairs, 63, 4. Saunders, B (2012) ‘Scottish Independence and the All-affected Interests Principle’, Politics,

33,1:47-55.

Further reading*You might also wish to read the Special Issue of Parliamentary Affairs ‘Britishness’ (2010) 63, 2. Articles by Bruce Crawford, ‘Ten Years of Devolution’; James Mitchell, ‘The Narcissism of Small Differences: Scotland and Westminster’ Alan Trench, ‘Wales and the Westminster Model’; Rick Wilford, ‘Northern Ireland: The Politics of Constraint’; Vernon Bogdanor, ‘The West Lothian Question’ Driver, S. (2011) Understanding British Party Politics (Cambridge:Polity). Chapter 8. On order.Jeffrey, Charlie. 2006. ‘Devolution and the Lopsided State’ in P. Dunleavy et al (eds.) Developments in British Politics 8, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Bonney, Norman. 2003. ‘The Scottish Parliament and Participatory Democracy: Vision andReality’ Political Quarterly, vol,74, no. 4, pp.459-467.Gormley-Heenan, C. (2010) ‘Power Sharing in Northern Ireland’, in Post-Devolution Britain’ in Heffernan, R. Et al (ed) Developments in British Politics 9 (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Lutz, Karin Gilland and Christopher Farrington. 2006. ‘Alternative Ulster? Political Parties and the Non-Constitutional Policy Space in Northern Ireland’ Political Studies, vol, 54, no.4, pp.715-742.McAllister, Laura. 1998. ‘The Welsh Devolution Referendum: Definitely, Maybe?’Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 51, no. 2, pp.149-165.Bogdanor, Vernon. (ed.) 2001. Devolution in the United Kingdom, Oxford: Oxford University Press. JN 329 D43 BOGBradbury Jonathon and James Mitchell. 2005. ‘Devolution Between Governance and Territorial Politics’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 58, no.2 pp.287-302.Bulpitt, Jim. 1983. Territory and Power in the UK, Manchester: MUP. JN450.D4 BULChen, Selina and Tony Wright. (eds) 2000. The English Question, London: Fabian Society. DA 110 ENGCoakley, J. (2011) ‘The Challenge of Consociation in Northern Ireland’, Parliam Aff , 64, 3.Curtice, John. 2006. ‘A Stronger or Weaker Union? Public Reactions to Asymmetric Devolution in the United Kingdom’, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol, 36, no.1, pp.95-113.Elcock, Howard and Michael Keating. (eds) 1998. Remaking the Union: Devolution and British Politics in the 1990s, London: Frank Cass. JN329.D43 REMFox, R. (2011) ‘Boom and Bust’ in Women's Representation: Lessons to be Learnt from a Decade of Devolution’, Parliam Aff 64, 1.Hazell, Robert and Alan Trench. 2004. Has Devolution Made a Difference? The State of the Nations 2004 Thorverton, Imprint Academic. JN329.D43 HASMitchell, James and Jonathon Bradbury. 2004. ‘Devolution: Comparative Development and Policy Roles’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 57, no.2, pp.329-346.Pilkington, Colin. 2002. Devolution in Britain Today, Manchester: Manchester University Press. JN329.D43 PILRawlings, Richard. 2003. Delineating Wales: Constitutional, Legal and Administrative Aspects of National Devolution, Cardiff: Cardiff University Press. JN1157 RAWTaylor, Bridget and Katarina Thomson (eds) 1999. Scotland and Wales: Nations Again?, Cardiff: University of Wales Press. JN 329 D43 SCOTonge, Jonathon. 2005. The New Northern Irish Politics?, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Week 9 Interest Groups This seminar will question the extent to which pressure groups enhance or detract from the democratic process. Typological models and theoretical explanations for interest groups influence on the policy making process will be discussed.

Questions for discussion in seminar:1) Is the insider/outsider pressure group model ‘less useful’ than it was? 2) Are Pressure groups supportive of, or a challenge to, parliamentary politics?3) Does it matter if pressure group activity is unbalanced towards leftists concerns, as Heffernan

12

suggests?

Required reading for seminar:

Heffernan, R. (2010) ‘Pressure Group Politics’, in Heffernan et al (ed) Developments in British Politics 9 (Basingstoke:Palgrave)

Grant, W.(2004) ‘Pressure Politics: The Changing World of Pressure Groups’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 57, no. 2, pp.408-419.

Page, E. (1999). ‘The Insider/Outsider Distinction: An Empirical Investigation’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol, 1, no. 2, pp.205-214.

Further reading:Alderman, Geoffrey.1984. Pressure Groups and Government in Great Britain, London: Longman. Baggott Rob. 1995. Pressure Groups Today, Manchester: Manchester University Press. JN329.P7 BAGBeer, Samuel, H. 1982. Britain Against Itself, London: Faber. JN234 BEECoxall, Bill. 2001. Pressure Groups in British Politics, London: Longman. JN 329 P7 COXDoherty, Brian., Alexandra Plows and Derek Wall. 2003. ‘The Preferred Way of Doing Things’: The British Direct Action Movements’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 56, no.4, pp.669-686.Maloney, William. 2006. ‘Political Participation Beyond the Electoral Arena’ in P. Dunleavy et al (eds.) Developments in British Politics 8, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Gavin, N. (2010) ‘Pressure Group Direct Action on Climate Change: The Role of the Media and the Web in Britain—A Case Study’, BJPIR, 12, 3. Grant, Wyn. 1995. Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. JN329.P7 GRAGrant, Wyn. 2005. ‘Pressure Politics: A Politics of Collective Consumption’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 58, no.2 , pp.366-379. Jordan. Grant., Darren Halpin and William Maloney. 2004. 'Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the need for New Distinctions,' British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol, 6, no.2, Jordan, Grant and William Maloney.1997. The Protest Business: Mobilizing Campaigning Groups, Manchester: Manchester University Press. HM278 JORParliamentary Affairs, special issue on “Protest Politics: Cause Groups and Campaigns” vol, 51, no.3.Marsh, David and Martin Smith. 2000. ‘Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach’ Political Studies, vol, 48, no. 1, pp.4-21. Parkin, Phil. 2007. Friend or Foe: Lobbying in British Democracy, London: Hansard Society. Availbale online. http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/downloads/archive/2007/09/24/friend-or-foe-lobbying-in-british-democracy-jan-2007.aspx Pattie, Charles., Patrick Seyd and Paul Whiteley. 2004. Citizenship in Britain: Values, Participation and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JN906 PATRichardson Jeremy. 2000. ‘Government, interest groups and policy change’ Political Studies, vol 49, no.5, pp.1006-1025.Robinson, Mike. 1992. The Greening of British Party Politics, Manchester: Manchester University Press. N3.22 ROB Stewart, John. D. 1958. British Pressure Groups, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Store 326336

Week 10 The Media

This seminar will assess the varied understandings of the role and influence of the media on contemporary British politics. Students will explore in particular the impact of various media on the 2010 GE.

Questions for discussion in seminar1) What role did the new media play in the 2010 GE?2) What was the impact of the TV debates on the 2010 GE?

Required reading for seminar: Chadwick, A. And Stanyer, J. (2010) ‘The Changing News Media Environment’, in Heffernan et al

(ed) Developments in British Politics 9 (Basingstoke:Palgrave) Wring, D. And Ward, S. (2010) ‘The Media and the 2010 Campaign: the Television Election?’,

Parliamentary Affairs 63, 4. Wring, D. And Deacon, D. (2010) ‘Patterns of press partisanship in the 2010 General Election’,

13

British Politics 5, 4.

Further reading:

2010 GEPattie, C. And Johnston, R. (2011) A Tale of Sound and Fury, Signifying Something? The Impact of the Leaders’ Debates in the 2010 UK General Election’, JEPOP, 21, 2.

Chadwick, A. (2011) Britain's First Live Televised Party Leaders’ Debate: From the News Cycle to the Political Information Cycle’, Parliamentary Affairs, 64,1.

Other:*Riddell, Peter. 2006. ‘The Rise of the Ranters: Saving Political Journalism’ The Political Quarterly, 76,1.Curran, John and Jean Seaton. 2003. Power Without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain, London: Routledge. P92 G7 CURCrewe, Ivor., Brian Gosschalk and John Bartle. (eds) 1998. Political Communications: Why Labour Won the General Election of 1997, London: Frank Cass. JN956 POLFranklin, Bob. 2004. Packaging Politics: Political communication in Britain’s Media Democracy, London: Arnold. PN4751 FRA Gaber, Ivor. 2000. ‘Government by Spin: An Analysis of the Process’, Media, Culture and Society, vol, 22, no. 4, pp.507-518. Gibbons, Virginia (2010) ‘Public Perceptions of the Media's Reporting of Politics Today’, Parliamentary Affairs 63, 2. Gaber, Ivor. 2004. ‘Alistair Campbell Exit Stage Left: Do the Phillis Recommendations Represent a New Chapter in Political Communications of is it Business as Usual?’, Journal of Public Affairs, vol, 4, no.4, pp.363-373.Harrison, Martin. 1985. TV News: Whose Bias?, Hermitage, Berks: Policy Journals. PN4784.T4 HARKavanagh, Dennis. 1995. Election Campaigning: The New Marketing of Politics, Oxford: Blackwell. JN956 KAVLloyd, John. 2004. What the Media are Doing to our Politics, London: Constable. P95.82.G7 LLOMcNair, Brian. 2003. Introduction to Political Communications, London: Routledge. JN234 MACMiller, David. (ed) 2003. Tell me Lies: Propoganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq, London: Pluto. DS79.76 TELPrice, Lance. 2005. The Spin Doctor’s Diary: Inside Number 10 with New Labour, London: Hodder & Stoughton. PN4748Seymour-Ure, Colin. 1997. ‘Editorial Opinion in the National Press’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 50, no. 4, pp.586-608Seymour-Ure, Colin. 1991. The British Press and Broadcasting Since 1945, Oxford: Blackwell. PN5118 SEYSeymour-Ure, Colin. 1994. ‘The Media in Post-War British Politics’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 47, no. 4, pp.532-548.Stanyer, J, (2003) ‘Politics and the Media: A Breakdown in Relations for New Labour’, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol, 56, No.2Stanyer, James. 2004. ‘Politics and the Media: A Crisis of Trust?’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol, 57, no.2, pp.420-434.Street, John. 2001. Mass Media, Politics and Democracy, London: Palgrave Macmillan. P95.8 STRTumber, Howard and Jerry Plamer. 2004. Media at War: The Iraq Crisis, London: Sage. DS79.76 TUMWring, Duncan. 2006. ‘The New Media and Public Relations State’ in P. Dunleavy et al (eds.) Developments in British Politics 8, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

14

15

APPENDIXGeneral School RegulationsPlease note that this is the first year Sociology and Politics have come together into SPAIS. We have standardised procedure where possible but due to differences in teaching practices some policies remain discipline specific for the 2010/2011 academic year.

Attendance at classesSPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an important part of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, having done the required reading. If you miss seminars, even if it is for a valid reason, you will be asked to complete ‘catch-up’ work to demonstrate that you are not falling behind on the unit. These pieces of work are required for credit points and it will affect your progression if you do not complete them.

Submission of courseworkPlease note you will be required to submit coursework electronically using Blackboard, the University of Bristol’s Online Learning Environment. Without an extension late work is subject to penalties. The penalty is calculated as follows:

Marks will be reduced by 10 for a delay of up to 24 hours, with a further 5-mark penalty for every subsequent delay of 24 hours (or part of). If the essay remains unsubmitted one week after the deadline, a mark of zero is recorded. You will still need to complete the essay in order to gain credit points.

The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and Saturday, Sunday and bank holidays are included in the calculation.

ExtensionsExtensions will only be granted by the Progress Tutor. Requests should be made directly to them before the deadline. Extensions will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances and they should be accompanied with supporting documentation, for example medical certificates. The self certification and medical certificate forms can be found at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/fssl/current-students/forms/index.html.

Marks/FeedbackClassifactory marks (those that contribute to your final degree classification) are subject to final adjudication by the External Examiner.

In addition to an overall mark, students will receive feedback on their assessed work and may contact unit tutors for further comments.

Presentation of written workCoursework and assessed essays must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or Times New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double –space or single-space your essays as you prefer. Your tutor may also have a preference: if they do they will let you know. In the end, though the final choice is yours. Single-spacing will save a huge amount of paper each year.

LengthEach piece of coursework must conform to the length requirements (word count) listed in the unit guide. Work that does not conform to length requirements will be subject to penalties. These will be applied to over-length essays in the following way:

Five marks will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Hence, an essay that is 1 word over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks.

Word Count For Sociology units the max word count includes all text, numbers, Harvard referencing in the

body of the text and direct quotes, footnotes/endnotes and bibliography, tables, maps, diagrams and appendices but excludes the header (title and candidate number).

16

For Politics units word count includes all text, numbers, Harvard referencing in the body of the text and direct quotes but excludes, the title, candidate number, footnotes/endnotes and bibliography, tables, maps, diagrams and appendices. Appendices are only for reproducing documents, not for additional text written by you. Footnotes and endnotes should contain minimal amounts of text. This means the citation and, at most, one line of additional explanation per page only. For essays containing more than this the footnotes will be included in the word count and may mean that your work is penalised for being overlength.

ReferencingWhere sources are used they must be cited and the referencing style employed by the School is the Harvard referencing system. Most types of essay must contain a bibliography and reference the material used. Inadequate referencing will result in marks being deducted. See the Study Skills Guide for where to get help with referencing and how bad academic practice and plagiarism is dealt with.

Fails and resitsIf you fail an essay or exam you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. Please note resubmissions/resits are marked on a pass/fail basis and are for credit purposes only – the original mark will stand.

Course packsMost units have course packs, which will be available from the end of week 0 from the Reception at 11 Priory Road. Purchasing course packs is optional and there will be a charge of £3 to cover printing costs.

For further information, students should consult the SPAIS Undergraduate Handbook (available on the SPAIS Undergraduate Administration site on Blackboard).

Instructions for the Submission of Essays

The School does not accept submission of essays in paper form. All coursework and assessed essay submissions must be done electronically via Blackboard. This is for three reasons. Firstly, it enables an efficient system of receipting, so both the student and the School have a record of exactly when an essay was submitted. Secondly, it enables the School to safeguard against plagiarism. Finally, it enables the School to systematically check the length of submitted essays.

All work submitted to the School is routinely checked by plagiarism detection software and is subject to standard policies regarding essay length and late submission.

The header of an essay submitted to the School should contain the information below:

For Sociology essaysName (for formative work) e.g. Joe Bloggs or Candidate Number (for all summative work) e.g. 12345 – (the candidate number for summative work is ensure anonymity during the marking process).Unit e.g. SOCI10004Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr L MarshallWord Count .e.g. 3300 words

For Politics essaysCandidate Number e.g. 12345 - This is to ensure anonymity during the marking of your work, so your name must not appear anywhere on your essay!Unit e.g. POLI11101Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr E EvansWord Count .e.g. 1,958 words

For all essays in both disciplines, please ensure that the Essay Title is on the first page and all pages are numbered.

You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that all parts of your work – references, bibliography etc – are included in one single document.

17

Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work submitted in .rtf (Rich Text Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use another word processing package, please ensure you save in a compatible format.

By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on plagiarism and confirm that the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the word count stated on the essay is an accurate statement of essay length.

Submission via Blackboard

All submission of essays occurs through the ‘SPAIS Undergraduate Administration’ site and not individual units. Follow the instructions below to submit your essay:

1. Log on to Blackboard and select the ‘SPAIS Undergraduate Administration’ unit.2. Click on the "Essay Submissions" option on the left hand menu. You should now see a list of the Units

that you are taking.3. Select the correct unit, and a list of the required work for the unit is displayed. 4. Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure that you

have selected both the correct unit and the correct piece of work. 5. The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter the unit code as a submission title,

and then select the file that you wish to upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click on the ‘upload’ button at the bottom.

6. You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct essay and click the ‘Submit’ button. Warning: this step must be completed or the submission is not complete.

7. You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and a copy sent to your email address for your records.

How do I know that my essay has been submitted?

If you click on the assessment again (steps 1-4), then you will see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If you click on submit, you will not be able to submit again. This table also displays the date of submission. If you click on the title of the essay, it will open in a new window and you can also see what time the essay was submitted.

18